Super Rugby in 2016 will take a vastly different shape to what we see today. After yesterday’s announcement from Bill Pulver, New Zealand Rugby Union have made a statement of their own.
18 teams, four conferences, two regional groups confirmed. There will be three new teams – from South Africa, Argentina and one other. The competition will be shorter – one week less for all teams.
The refreshed competition will kick off from 2016 New Zealand Rugby CEO Steve Tew says the model offers the best chance to ensure it continues to be the premier international provincial rugby competition in the world.
“We wanted Super Rugby to remain a competitive, entertaining and commercially viable competition, one players enjoy being part of and we think this structure ticks all those boxes.
“This is the best option to evolve what is already a fantastic competition and one that continues to deliver for fans, teams, players and sponsors.
“From a player point of view it was important that we managed the travel of the teams. We needed a platform that ensured our best players could continue to perform at their peak. Equally keeping South Africa in the regular competition was an important part of what makes Super Rugby.
“With a later start and one less match for each team in the competition, we believe we have got the balance right. We also believe we have a competition that will continue to feed a winning All Blacks team.
“From a fans’ perspective, there will still be plenty of derbies to enjoy as well as top rugby from the best players in the world. Now we have a great opportunity to ensure Super Rugby continues to flourish in what is an increasingly competitive market for sports fans’ attention.”
The new teams will comprise one new team from South Africa and Argentina, and another selected in a competitive tender.
Teams will play in one of four conferences split evenly into two regional groups – the Australasia Group and the South Africa Group.
Steve Tew said the new structure had been approved and confirmed by all SANZAR nations and Argentina following a thorough consultation and negotiation process with national Unions, Super Rugby organisations and teams and will now form the basis for negotiations with the competition’s broadcast partners.
Super Rugby teams and players welcome new format
Chiefs Rugby Club Chairman Dallas Fisher said the changes were a natural evolution of the competition, while at the same time keeping the best elements of the existing format.
“We know that fans love the New Zealand derby matches so it’s great to see they have been retained. At the same time we know that innovations are important if we want to see Super Rugby grow.”
Crusaders Coach Todd Blackadder said: “As a coach, we were looking for a competition that continues to offer a great playing environment and real competition.
“Super Rugby is an outstanding competition, and it’s exciting to think that we’ll have new teams in the mix – but most importantly, we are keeping the number of matches and the length of the season manageable.”
Rugby Players Association CEO Rob Nichol said: “In our view this proposal is the best of the options put forward given the complexity of issues, and number and location of teams involved.
“While recognising there is still some work to do around the new teams, draw logistics and commercialisation we support its presentation to the broadcasters and fans. We feel that in taking the time to fully comprehend it they too will appreciate the subtle aspects of what is ultimately a practical compromise, and quite exciting prospect, for all involved.”
David Baker
Roar Pro
I didn't argue that SA pushed the home play off I argued against that it was the trigger for the playoffs. Both SA and Aus wanted an extra team All three sides wanted less travel. And anyway playoffs are redundant is a straight league As for the extra side ... The order of the decisions determined the outcome. SA was totally out thought by O'Neill The second they agreed to a country based, derby based conference system there was only going to be one winner Melbourne didn't even submit a financially guaranteed bid (their backers pulled out) Remember these negotiations are secret. The negotiators leak bits to the press as it suits. O'Neill was particularly vocal . If you are quoting the world according to ONeill it's a biased world. At the time I was reading the press from all 3 countries tracking back to the source. 5 articles regurgitating 1 interview is one bit of news. What is impossible to argue against is that in 2009 SA and Aus were in a massive ding dong and SA lost... Badly
soapit
Guest
my memories' with dally m
Dally M
Guest
The initial discussions about expanding the finals took place in 2009. All countries wanted to expand because of the extra revenue they generated. SA had not had many home finals at that point and were happy to expand to 6 on the proviso they got a guaranteed home semi. Oz and NZ said no, if it was going to increase it would be the top 6 only. SA wouldn't agree so it was shelved. The 5th Oz teams was not automatically Australian. SANZAR agreed to add a 15th team because both Oz & SA wanted an extra team in the comp. SANZAR agreed on expansion and put the 15th slot up for tender. They created the conferences to allow SA a home final, which then backfired on them in terms of the 15th team because SANZAR then said it would be in the Oz conference to make things even. SA & Oz both tendered & Melbourne won over the Kings.
David Baker
Roar Pro
I agree you can't have a guaranteed playoff on a straight round robin. But on a straight round robin why do you need to give positions 5 and 6 another chance...? So who wanted the playoffs to even exist. You only need quarter finals if there is a conference system because conferences are inherently uneven But you chaps are contending that the conference system came about because SA wanted a home play off. It didn't . The conference system happened for the reasons I mentioned . Rewind to 2009. Look at the gains each country got. - Aus got a 5th side, conference system and local derbies - Nz didn't get much but they backed Aus - SA according to you chaps got the guaranteed play off. I said the guaranteed playoff was a minor point compared to the other points... That is what I contended
BL
Guest
Folks It is all good talk about maybe a Japanese set up joining into the expanded competition - especially a sensible commercial appraisal - BUT, according to sources from the land of the rising sun no one from SANZAR has discussed this new concept with the JRU thus far Expanded comp - more dud matches - I want more and better skilled rugby and if it means less franchises then all the better ! - there are just so many players, coaches and match officials learning the game of rugby at the elite level mostly at the expense of the pay television viewers
Dally M
Guest
Again, explain to me how you grant a guaranteed home final to a team from SA that finished 6th or even outside the top 6 without a conference split? I don't deny Oz supported it, because it also suited their desire for more local derbies which meant more $'s from Fox & gate takings for each province.
Dally M
Guest
If the guaranteed home final was not a major point, why didn't SA drop it after NZ & Oz failed to agree to it in 2009 & insisted it be the top 6 teams irrespective of origin? Oz wanted more local derbies because that's what rates better on Fox over here & generates better gate takings, not a longer season. You still haven't explained how you grant SA a guaranteed home final without a conference system.
David Baker
Roar Pro
Or Europe? Altough dont know how that would mesh with their season
David Baker
Roar Pro
Felix, I disagree with you about Jurie Roux. I think he has done a good job given the situation he inherited. These negotiations are always incremental. The real clowns are those that agreed to the Super 15 Conference system... And that want Jurie
David Baker
Roar Pro
Thats complete nonsense Craig... They didnt do Conferences because of the guaranteed play offs. Not even O'Neill alleged that We didnt even need play offs in the 1st place. The guaranteed play off was a minor point compared to the far bigger major points below (a,b,c)... and tell me they arent bigger? SANZAR did conferences because of a) The desire for a longer season... An Aus desire. SA and NZ didnt need it but didnt argue hard enough against it b) More local derbies (home away... mainly an Aus desire but one the broadcasters didnt mind c) Less travel - OK all 3 countries wanted that Who's views are you basing your allegations on? Or you parroting John O'Neill or someone that is parroting John O'Neill? The chief trouble is that you have 3 countries with different needs and different revenue contributions You are starting from the position that Aus needs are more important than others. Why is Aus's need for a tourney that covers the lack of their domestic tourney more important than our need for a 6th team? To satisfy everyones needs a little, huge compromises are needed and you end up with the hpdge podge that makes everyone feel a little deflated. Welcome to the life of international compromise. Aus could go it alone. AFter all they have the NRC now which is going into its ... ahem ... 1st year
David Baker
Roar Pro
What was because of SA? The extra sides to accommodate the SA 6th side? Yes The Conference System? No. The Conference System came about because a) There was a predominantly Aus desire for a longer season - SA didnt want that b) Aus wanted more local derbies because they didnt have a domestic tourney c) All country's wanted less time away from home .Your allegation that the conference system came about because of SA's desire for a play off is laughable... That would never drive the Conference System In 2012, we could have had a Super 15 with 6 SA sides and no conference system but that would have fallen foul of b) and c) For the Super 15 Aus got everything material and NZ and SA didnt get much This time SA get their 6th side and less time away BUT we lose cross ocean games. We now get 5 a year as opposed to the current 8. To pin the Super 15 and Super 18 Conference system compromises on SA is at best laughable and more likely a tad ignorant
David Baker
Roar Pro
@Craig - It is undeniable that SA has the advantage viewing time wise. Our worst viewing slot is a mid morning Friday game which we cant watch because we are at work. (So thats a bad one but the rest are tolerable) However you are still wrong to blame it all on times In the 2012 Pool phase - I only have the audited data for the 20 biggest games - 19 out of 20 games were with a SA team - Positions 1 to 7 were SA derbies - The only 1 in the top 20 that didnt involve a SA side was the Crusaders vs Blues which was on a Saturday around 8/9am SA time... not a great slot - NZ viewers - 274k - Aus viewers - 93k - SA viewers 373k - More than Aus and NZ put together for a game not involving any SA players in a timeslot unsuited to us. Sure if the world was flat and we had a single time zone the Aus comparative averages would be better. Still wouldnt come close numbers wise. To put it into perspective we crazy people often have well over 100k viewers for a game between 2 universities featuring zero Bok, Super Rugby or Currie Cup players
Dally M
Roar Rookie
How about you provide some form of constructive comment refuting whatever it is you disagree with, and while you are at it try replying the actual post so i/we have some idea exactly which post you disagree with.
Magic Sponge
Guest
The bullet has just hit the skull, just seeing it if will be terminal or not.
felix
Guest
Craig Bowers stop commenting rubbish here,how the heck is it SA's fault,you loafers stopped the Super 12 which was ok,made it into a failed product which just created more failed products because Aus has never had the finances to back the changes to begin with. You will only convince those fools at the negotiation table not us reall rugby and business analysts!,I agree that J.Roux and co are the biggest idiots to speak for SA in negotiations and the first step for SA is to get rid of them first!.
Magic Sponge
Guest
What about a pacific island team for the 18th
tubby
Guest
don't forget you may only get to see teams from other conferences playing in your city once every 4 years - but not to worry, they'll completely change the structure again before then
Dally M
Roar Rookie
That's a pretty big jump. Again the SA numbers make sense, even for non-SA teams because of the time they air. I'll watch whatever all kiwi game, or kiwi v SA team game that is on prior to a game in Oz because it's time friendly whereas i have zero interest in a game in SA unless my team is playing & even them i will record it & watch after breakfast.
Rusty
Roar Guru
Further food for thought South African viewing numbers for games NOT involving SA teams - 8.8 million Bigger than the entire Australian viewing number and why SANZAR is handcuffed to SA for any broadcast negotiation
Rusty
Roar Guru
Figures in the herald quote this as 95,000